Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !
Recent Appearances... Rantburg

Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
In the United States, they revealed where Ukrainian money is actually flowing
2022-08-01
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
[RIA Novosti] Funds allocated as aid to Ukraine are actually returning back to the United States without reaching the recipient, Colonel Douglas McGregor,
..West Point class of ‘76, US Army (Gulf War I, Kosovo), author of Breaking the Phalanx...
a former adviser to the Secretary of Defense,
...that would be Donald Rumsfeld, not whoever has the title now...
said in an interview with the Judging Freedom YouTube channel.
Been saying that for months, now. Welcome to the party, pal.
“We must not forget about money. All these billions of dollars, where are they? Most of them simply do not reach Ukraine. Huge sums end up in the Pentagon as compensation to the armed forces for the fact that equipment and resources were transferred to Europe,” he said.

With the help of the returned money, the manufacture of new equipment and weapons is paid for, McGregor explained, calling the scheme a "vicious circle" and a "scam".

Western countries continue to pump weapons to Ukraine. Earlier, US President Joe Biden signed the lend-lease law, tens of billions of dollars are allocated for military assistance to Kiev. Moscow, in turn, has repeatedly stated that the supply of weapons only prolongs the conflict, and transport with them becomes a legitimate target for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
Related:
Douglas McGregor: 2022-07-08 Russian Perspective: Operation to Denazify Ukraine: Operational Brief July 7th (updated)
Douglas McGregor: 2022-06-19 American Conservative: US will reap the benefits of its lies in Ukraine
Douglas McGregor: 2021-12-24 Ukraine, the United States and its allies face a complete failure
Link


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Clinton-era deal for surrender of Ukrainian nukes left nation prey to Russian aggression: Bolton
2022-02-25
[JustTheNews] A "peace dividend" agreement that in 1994 removed nuclear weapons from Ukraine seemed sensible at the time, but now has left that country weakened against a belligerent Russia, a former top ranking U.S. security official said Thursday.

"The end of the Cold War meant there was no threat that we needed to worry about" and prompted the move to denuclearize Ukraine, said John Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and national security adviser. "It was one of those agreements the Clinton administration reached in that period. Remember, it was the end of history."

The repercussions of that agreement are being felt today, he said.

"This is a wake-up call for us," Bolton said in an interview on the John Solomon Reports podcast. "And it's certainly a tragedy for the Ukrainian people. I think we're gonna see that over the next several days, a real tragedy."

The 1994 agreement, known as the Budapest Memorandum, was reached between the United States, Russia, and Britain, following the breakup of the Soviet Union. At the time, Ukraine possessed some 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads, comprising the world's third largest nuclear arsenal.

In an effort to reduce the number of countries that maintained nuclear arsenals, three nations — the U.S., Britain, and Russia — asked Ukraine to give up its nukes. In exchange, the three nations would "respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" and "refrain from the threat or use of force" against it.

Ukraine relinquished the nukes. One country, Russia, did not sign the agreement.

Early Thursday morning, Russia launched a surprise invasion of Ukraine.

"It teaches us the lesson, that the way you achieve peace is through strength," Bolton said. "That's important. As Donald Rumsfeld used to say, strength is not provocative. Weakness is provocative."
Related:
John Bolton: 2022-02-19 Unexplained injuries similar to previous
John Bolton: 2022-01-07 Stephanie Grisham says group of ex-Trump officials to meet next week to discuss how to 'stop' him
John Bolton: 2021-10-19 Maduro ally Alex Saab appears in court to face corruption charges
Related:
Budapest Memorandum: 2022-02-18 Moscow's response on security guarantees
Budapest Memorandum: 2014-03-14 Crisis in Crimea: Will Kazakhstan Be Next?
Budapest Memorandum: 2014-03-11 Ukraine may have to go nuclear, says Kiev lawmaker
Link


-Obits-
Donald Rumsfeld dead at 88: Former defense secretary at helm of Iraq, Afghanistan wars
2021-06-30
[FoxNews] Donald Rumsfeld, the long-time American politician and former defense secretary, has died at the age of 88, his family announced.

Donald Rumsfeld, who charted an impressive Washington career serving under four presidents but whose legacy largely was defined by his controversial tenure as defense secretary during the Iraq War, has died, his family announced Wednesday. He was 88.

Rumsfeld, a confident adviser to power with a trenchant style that made him admirers as well as enemies, had a long and winding career in public life that spanned five decades. He had been a congressman and a White House chief of staff, and had a successful corporate career, too. But it was his second term as secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006 – during the most tumultuous period of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars – for which he is most known.

"It is with deep sadness that we share the news of the passing of Donald Rumsfeld, an American statesman and devoted husband, father, grandfather and great grandfather," Rumsfeld’s family said in a statement. "At 88, he was surrounded by family in his beloved Taos, New Mexico. History may remember him for his extraordinary accomplishments over six decades of public service, but for those who knew him best and whose lives were forever changed as a result, we will remember his unwavering love for his wife Joyce, his family and friends, and the integrity he brought to a life dedicated to country."
Related:
Donald Rumsfeld: 2020-05-28 Coronavirus Propaganda Mimics War Propaganda
Donald Rumsfeld: 2020-03-13 Syria is winding up towards the end. What will be the next war?
Donald Rumsfeld: 2019-04-30 The New Revolution in Military Affairs - War's Sci-Fi Future
Link


Government
Coronavirus Propaganda Mimics War Propaganda
2020-05-28
[Mises.org] In the period leading up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration and its media accomplices waged a relentless propaganda campaign to win political support for what turned out to be one of the most disastrous foreign policy mistakes in American history.
Oh lord. This is what happens when you let economists think about things other than money.
Nearly two decades later, with perhaps a million dead Iraqis and thousands of dead American soldiers, we are still paying for that mistake.
I s’pose it could be argued that we should have dropped a few Daisy Cutters or neutron bombs, then warned them not to catch our attention again, but Dave D. laid out why that should not be our first choice that first time. I have the link somewhere — if I find it I’ll add it in the comments, or perhaps he will if he happens to wander in today...
Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were key players behind the propaganda‐which we can define as purposeful use of information and misinformation to manipulate public opinion in favor of state action. Iraq and its president Saddam Hussein were the ostensible focus, but their greater goal was to make the case for a broader and open-ended "War on Terror." ​
That’s one name for the current phase of the 1300+ year Muslim conquest of the world in the name of Islam. The Prophet Mohammed (bees piss on his knees) started it in the 7th century AD, and it won’t end until they either conquer or are destroyed.
So they created a narrative using a mélange of half-truths, faintly plausible fabrications, and outright lies:
Bull. Shit. They should be ashamed to even think such things.
  • Iraq and the nefarious Saddam Hussein were "behind," i.e., backing, the Saudi terrorists responsible for 9-11 attacks on the US;
    ...not backing, but certainly training them at Salman Pak. The reports are in our archives.
  • Hussein and his government were stockpiling yellowcake uranium in an effort to develop nuclear capability;
    Yep. Killed some entrepreneurial locals who discovered it and thought it was pretty. The reports are in our archives. Some of our Rantburgers can talk about it more directly, if they’re willing.
  • Hussein was connected with al-Qaeda
    ...Al Qaeda and all the other Sunni and secular Arab terror groups, not to mention most of the others that wanted to learn how to hijack airplanes and make explosives. Again, Salman Pak stories are scattered throughout the Rantburg archives...
  • Iran was lurking in the background as a state sponsor of terrorism, coordinating and facilitating attacks against the US in coordination with Hamas;
    ...also in our archives, including in recent days...
  • Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, and other terror groups were working against the US across the Middle East in some kind of murky but coordinated effort;
    Duh!
  • We have to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here";
    That is a matter of taste, of course — some think it’s unsportsmanlike to not let them get at our civilians at home, just like we let a nice variety of narco-gangs fight over territory in our city ghettos...
  • The Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators.
    And so they did. Once again we have articles, photos, and video in the Rantburg archives.
And so forth.
So forth, indeed.
But the propaganda "worked" in the most meaningful sense: Congress voted nearly 3–1 in favor of military action against Iraq, and Gallup showed 72 percent of Americans supporting the invasion as it commenced in 2003. Media outlets across the spectrum such as the Washington Post cheered the war. National Review dutifully did its part, labeling Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, and other outspoken opponents of the invasion as "unpatriotic conservatives."
Et cetera at length, turned to the WuHu Flu issue. After that introduction I can’t be bothered to read further. So if you do, dear Reader, feel free to comment on it for us.
Related:
Salman Pak: 2011-12-18 Federal judge: Iran shares responsibility for 9/11 terror attacks
Salman Pak: 2009-03-24 Will Sunni's rejoin AQI for the bucks?
Salman Pak: 2008-12-11 One terr killed, 18 suspects in custody — MNF
Related:
Yellowcake: 2019-10-27 Deep State Hates America First Policy
Yellowcake: 2019-09-28 Joe Wilson, ambassador who opposed Iraq War, dead at 69
Yellowcake: 2019-08-21 North Korean uranium plant 'is leaking radioactive waste into a nearby river putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk of cancer and brain defects'
Related:
Mises: 2020-05-26 Why Didn't the 1958 and 1918 Pandemics Destroy the Economy? Hint: It's the Lockdowns
Mises: 2020-05-11 The Global Airline Industry Is in Even Worse Shape Than You Think
Mises: 2020-04-26 The COVID-19 Crisis Is Driving the EU to the Brink
Link


Home Front: WoT
Syria is winding up towards the end. What will be the next war?
2020-03-13
[VoltaireNet] Events in the "Broader Middle East" since 2001 have followed a relentless logic. The current question is whether the time has come for a new war in Turkey or Saudi Arabia. The answer depends in particular on the resumption of hostilities in Libya. It is in this context that the Additional Protocol negotiated by Presidents Erdoğan and Putin to resolve the Idleb crisis must be interpreted.

President George W. Bush decided to radically transform the Pentagon’s missions, as Colonel Ralph Peters explained in the Army magazine Parameters on September 13, 2001. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appointed Admiral Arthur Cebrowski to train future officers. Cebrowski spent three years touring military universities so that today all general officers have taken his courses. His thoughts were popularized for the general public by his deputy, Thomas Barnett.

The areas affected by the US war will be given over to "chaos". This concept is to be understood in the sense of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, i.e. as the absence of political structures capable of protecting citizens from their own violence ("Man is a wolf to man"). And not in the biblical sense of making a clean slate before the creation of a new order.

This war is an adaptation of the US Armed Forces to the era of globalization, to the transition from productive capitalism to financial capitalism. "War is a Racket," as Smedley Butler, America’s most decorated general, used to say before World War II. From now on, friends and enemies will no longer count; war will allow for the simple management of natural resources.
Link


Science & Technology
The New Revolution in Military Affairs - War's Sci-Fi Future
2019-04-30
[Foreign Affairs] In 1898, a Polish banker and self-taught military expert named Jan Bloch published The Future of War, the culmination of his long obsession with the impact of modern technology on warfare. Bloch foresaw with stunning prescience how smokeless gunpowder, improved rifles, and other emerging technologies would overturn contemporary thinking about the character and conduct of war. (Bloch also got one major thing wrong: he thought the sheer carnage of modern combat would be so horrific that war would "become impossible.")

What Bloch anticipated has come to be known as a "revolution in military affairs"‐the emergence of technologies so disruptive that they overtake existing military concepts and capabilities and necessitate a rethinking of how, with what, and by whom war is waged. Such a revolution is unfolding today. Artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, ubiquitous sensors, advanced manufacturing, and quantum science will transform warfare as radically as the technologies that consumed Bloch. And yet the U.S. government’s thinking about how to employ these new technologies is not keeping pace with their development.

This is especially troubling because Washington has been voicing the same need for change, and failing to deliver it, ever since officials at the U.S. Department of Defense first warned of a coming "military-technical revolution," in 1992. That purported revolution had its origins in what Soviet military planners termed "the reconnaissance-strike complex" in the 1980s, and since then, it has been called "network-centric warfare" during the 1990s, "transformation" by U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in these pages in 2002, and "the third offset strategy" by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work in 2014. But the basic idea has remained the same: emerging technologies will enable new battle networks of sensors and shooters to rapidly accelerate the process of detecting, targeting, and striking threats, what the military calls the "kill chain."

Link


Arabia
Trump picks retired general John Abizaid as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia
2018-11-15
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] President Donald Trump
...New York real estate developer, described by Dems as illiterate, racist, misogynistic, and what ever other unpleasant descriptions they can think of, elected by the rest of us as 45th President of the United States...
on Tuesday tapped John Abizaid, a top US general from the Iraq war who has studied the Middle East for years, as ambassador to Soddy Arabia
...a kingdom taking up the bulk of the Arabian peninsula. Its primary economic activity involves exporting oil and soaking Islamic rubes on the annual hajj pilgrimage. The country supports a large number of princes in whatcha might call princely splendor. When the oil runs out the rest of the world is going to kick sand in the Soddy national face...
.

Abizaid is a fluent Arabic speaker of Lebanese Christian descent who headed US Central Command -- which covers the Middle East -- during the Iraq war from shortly after the US invasion in 2003 through 2007.

The 67-year-old wrote his master's thesis at Harvard University about Saudi Arabia, studying how the kingdom makes its decisions on defense spending, in a paper that won acclaim in academic circles.

A Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, native, Abizaid graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and later won a scholarship to study in Jordan, where he honed his Arabic, which he did not speak as a child.

Trump has been slow in filling key posts amid his promises to shake up Washington.

Abizaid requires confirmation from the Senate, which would appear likely as the retired four-star general has long enjoyed respect in Washington.

Shortly after taking over as CENTCOM commander, Abizaid told news hounds that US forces were facing a "classical guerrilla-type campaign" from remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

His choice of words contradicted his bosses, who initially tried to portray the Iraq invasion as a quick victory, but then defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld did not move to replace him amid admiration for Abizaid's skills.

And soon after retiring in 2007, Abizaid said that, while the United States should try to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, "there are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," describing the holy manal state's behavior as rational and noting the United States also dealt with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union.

Link


Home Front: Culture Wars
A space corps in the U.S. military a ‘no brainer,’ says former astronaut
2018-02-01
[SN] Virts is one of only four astronauts ever to have piloted a space shuttle, flown on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft, performed space walks and commanded the International Space Station. He is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School and served as an experimental test pilot in the F-16 combined test force.

“The kind of person who learns how to fly an airplane and drop bombs is different than one who learns to fly spaceships,” he said.

Space operations demand unique skills like understanding orbits and calibrating sensors. “It’s not flying F-16s.” This reality becomes clear during promotion boards, Virts said, “Where you see that pilots and space guys don’t understand each others’ career paths.”

The space cadre within the Air Force is sizeable, Virts noted. Many people would be surprised to know that the Air Force Space Command is three times the size of NASA. “Air Force Space command started in the early 1980s. It’s definitely mature enough to be its own force and not a subcommand within the Air Force,” he said.

These issues will be probed in an upcoming study to be overseen by the Pentagon’s interim space adviser to the defense secretary, Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan. Congress stripped that role from the secretary of the Air Force out of frustration that service leaders are not paying sufficient attention to space. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 directed the study — focused on how to reorganize the military space enterprise — be conducted by an independent think tank.

Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee told SpaceNews last month that the committee has not given up on the idea of a space corps. “I think logically, eventually, we will get to a space corps,” Smith said. “We will push it again.”

Defense and space analyst Todd Harrison, who oversees aerospace programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, recalled that the movement to create a space corps gained momentum with the 2001 Space Commission Report led by Donald Rumsfeld. The conclusion of that report: “Yep, we need to get on a path to transition to an independent service for space if not an independent department for space,” Harrison commented.

Notably, after Rumsfeld became secretary of defense “he kind of let it go. And it didn’t progress from there,” Harrison said. He does not believe the HASC is “going to let it die. I think they’re going to keep pushing it forward, inch by inch.”

A reasonable timeline for the transition would be about five years. “Maybe a little more, little less depending on how aggressive you want to be,” he said. “That obviously is going to require Congress to put that into law.”

The acquisition of new satellites, space sensors, launch vehicles and other complex systems requires specialized talent, Harrison said. The Air Force would be politically wise to start making some changes soon, such as creating a separate workforce within the Air Force for space acquisitions. “It’s not plausible to think that you can take any acquisition professional who’s worked on other types of systems and plop them into a space program and expect them to perform to the level that we need them to perform.”

Building a satellite has little in common with building airplanes, he added, “no more than building an Army tank has anything in common with building a fighter jet. You wouldn’t take an acquisition professional from the Army and put them in charge of the F-35 program. So why do we do that for space?”

The Air Force could start doing that now, Harrison suggested, and Congress would likely welcome the initiative.
Link


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Donald Rumsfeld: Trump's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was a 'no brainer'
2017-12-09
[Wash Examiner] Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called President Trump’s controversial decision to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel a "no brainer."

"I guess the reason it's an issue is because there are countries around the world that would prefer that it had not been done," Rumsfeld told Fox News host Laura Ingraham on Wednesday night. "It's a no brainer. It's the right thing to do. President Trump made the right decision ‐ he stepped up and did it. It's inevitable that there will be some criticism about it. But I just can't imagine any country in the world that doesn't believe that they have the right to have their capital where they want it."

The status of Jerusalem is highly controversial, as both Israelis and Palestinians have claimed it as their capital.

Ingraham asked Rumsfeld if Trump would be blamed should the decision provoke terrorism or attacks on U.S. embassies.

"I don't see it that way at all," Rumsfeld responded. "It seems to me that the president made the right decision. He stepped up and did it. It's inevitable that there will be people that don't like it and will make noise about it, but the idea that it could lead to a stream of terrorism, I just don't see that at all."

The State Department issued warnings to American embassies around the world to increase security, ahead of the expected announcement, and Hamas, a Palestinian militant Islamic group, said they would call for a new Palestinian uprising if the U.S. named Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Trump vs Bush
2016-11-10
[DAWN] THERE is madness, then there’s Trump. Since a lot of lyrical indignation has already been expressed about the horrors of a Trump presidency, let me dwell on a comparison here that others have not tried to undertake yet.

Remember George Bush Jr? The insanity that was his presidency may seem like a memory, but the fires he lit are still raging in the Middle East. That’s the kind of damage a madman can do from within the White House. But there are some crucial differences between Bush and Trump which make the latter far more dangerous.

Start with this. Bush was an ideologue whereas Trump is nakedly an egotist. Bush lived the swashbuckling life till 40, boozing to his heart’s content, then became a born-again Christian and switched to a rigorous and disciplined lifestyle.

Trump, on the other hand, is driven by little more than his own urges, rather primal ones at that. He recognises no power greater than himself, and does not consider himself accountable to any moral standard, whether in the conduct of his day-to-day life, or in his larger agenda for the country.

All his life he has championed liberal causes like a woman’s right to choose, but then suddenly somewhere around 2012 he began to gravitate towards a pro-life stance, first by saying that late-term abortions should be outlawed, but slowly drifting further and further towards the hardest of anti-choice stances, ultimately getting trapped into saying that a woman deserves punishment for having an abortion.

On issues like guns and race, Trump only began to court the holy warrior right when he felt its power, and the ease with which the words that sought to get their attention came out of his mouth showed he felt no compunction whatsoever in embracing such hard and divisive
...politicians call things divisive when when the other side sez something they don't like. Their own statements are never divisive, they're principled...
stances on issues so central to American political life. It wasn’t boldness, it was audacious opportunism. Someone of this makeup can change his mind in a moment and start saying things that are completely contrary, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

This is an important contrast to Bush, whose mind was firmly made up, whose thinking was anchored in his religious beliefs, and who was closely wedded to a conservative social agenda for decades and even campaigned on it.

Second, Bush was very much a creature of the Republican Party whereas Trump has burned the party down to get power. Bush was the compromise candidate in 2000, the safe bet because they couldn’t agree on any of the other nominees.

Once in power, he built his Camelot by bowing individually to each of the factions that the party had fragmented into. So the Christian right got the attorney general (John Ashcroft), the isolationists got the UN representative (John Bolton), the old guard got the secretary of state (Colin Powell), the military contractors got defence (Donald Rumsfeld who sought to privatise large chunks of the armed forces), and Wall Street got treasury (Henry Paulson, after O’Neill and Snow didn’t quite work out) and the neocon faction got the vice president.

Trump, on the other hand, has spoken of Republican Party leaders with staggering disdain when they failed to endorse him. He didn’t seek their confidence, he demanded it and punished them terribly when they wavered. He stands above the party and will not behave as if he owes it anything.

Bush’s idea of dealing with criticism was to ignore it. He read no newspapers, preferring to rely on the counsel of those around him rather than making up his own mind. He surrounded himself by likeminded advisers and his court became profoundly a victim of groupthink.

Trump, on the other hand, bristles at criticism, is keenly tuned to what people are saying about him and actively seeks affirmation in the eyes of others. He cannot deal with it when he does not get this affirmation and responds reflexively to criticism.

Moreover, Bush was largely empty in the upstairs quarter and actively outsourced his thinking and decision-making to others, even as he tried to present himself as "decider-in-chief". The decision to invade Iraq, for example, was not his but that of his brand of neocon advisers, led by Dick Cheney, who did much of the thinking on foreign affairs, along with Karl Rove who did the thinking on domestic matters.

Trump, on the other hand, outsources nothing, preferring to retain the prerogative for himself. He demands to know what people think of a particular issue, then persecutes those who think differently from him. When he changes his mind, those around him are expected to follow suit. They will never have a say in any decision-making, while his own decisions are rooted in an opportunistic miasma of whim, greed, ambition and other animal instincts.

In short, a Trump presidency is likely to be of an order of magnitude more dangerous than the Bush presidency. It took Bush almost four years to begin to realise that the invasion of Iraq may not have been the best idea, even if he never publicly acknowledged the mistake. He toyed with idea of bombing Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons according to reporting by Seymour Hersh, but never crossed that red line.

He walked out of the Kyoto Protocol and showed disdain for global regimes that served as constraints on American power. But he bowed before the power of the establishment, and oversaw the implementation of the WTO and the strengthening of NATO
...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A collection of multinational and multilingual and multicultural armed forces, all of differing capabilities, working toward a common goal by pulling in different directions...
How will Trump, with his erratic mind, whimsical instincts, centralised decision-making around himself, and total disregard for anything -- whether facts, reality, consequences, or the opinions of others -- that runs against his whims, approach the same issues?

Bush showed us what can happen when the powers of the White House fall in the wrong hands. With Trump though, we have something of an order of magnitude that is far more deadly.
Link


Home Front: Politix
Former President George H.W. Bush raps Cheney, Rumsfeld in biography
2015-11-05
Former President George H.W. Bush takes some unexpected swipes at Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, key members of his son's administration, over their reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks, in a new biography of the 41st president, Fox News reported on Wednesday.

In "Destiny and Power: The American Odyssey Of George Herbert Walker Bush," author Jon Meacham quotes Bush as saying that Cheney and Rumsfeld were too hawkish and that their harsh stance damaged the reputation of the United States, the cable news network said.

I wonder what he says about the Girl Friday?
Link


Home Front: WoT
Bush wrong on Iraq: Rumsfeld
2015-06-10
[Iran Press TV] Former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld says his commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, was wrong to push "democracy" on Iraq.
It was a case of trying to fit ballet slippers on a horse, but if it had worked it would have put an outpost of rationality in the heart of the world of non-reason, or more accurately anti-reason.
"I'm not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories. The idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic," Rumsfeld said in a wide-ranging interview with The Times of London.

Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, said he became "concerned" when he first heard the idea of a democratic Iraq, floated by former president Bush.

The former Pentagon chief also criticized President Barack Obama
My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it...
's approach towards the ISIL terrorist group, controlling large parts of Iraq and Syria.

"The movement for a caliphate, the movement against nation states is central and fundamental, and no one's talking about it," Rumsfeld said, referring to the ISIL's self-proclaimed caliphate in Iraq and Syria.
Link



Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More